MALINA BALA DASI Vs. KUMUDLAL CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners before me are landladies in respect of certain premises of which the opposite party is the tenant. In May, 1952, the tenant opposite party filed two applications before the House Rent Controller-one under Section 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (case No. 85 of 1952) for fixation of standard rent and another under Section 7 of the said Act (case No. 83 of 1952) for refund of excess rent realised by the landladies. On June 7, 1952, both the applications were allowed ex parte by the Rent Controller; in case No. 85 under the order of the Rent Controller standard rent was fixed at Rs. 7-12-0 per month with effect from June, 1952. In the other case, that is, in the case of No. 83, the order passed by the Rent Controller on the same date was that the landladies were to refund to the tenant a sum of Rs. 120-12-0. It may be observed here that it was not specified in the order as to how this amount was arrived at. Be that as it may, on July 5, 1952, the landladies filed two applications which were described as review petitions under Section 32 of the said Act for setting aside the orders, dated June 7, 1952. We are not concerned now with the order which was passed in case No. 83 on June 7, 1952, by which the landladies were directed to make a refund to the tenant of the sum of Rs. 120-12-0. The Rent Controller held by his order, dated August 23, 1952, that the previous order passed on June 7, 1952, directing refund was wrong and it was set aside accordingly and the application for refund was rejected. Against this decision an appeal was preferred before the District Judge of Midnapore by the tenant and the learned District Judge was of the opinion that the order of the Rent Controller, dated June 7, 1952, directing refund of the sum of Rs. 120-12-0 was quite legal and accordingly the learned District Judge set aside the order of the Rent Controller, dated August 23, 1952, setting aside the order, dated June 7, 1952, directing refund of the sum of Rs. 120-12-0.

(2.) It is the propriety of this order of the learned District Judge which has been called in question before me by the landladies.

(3.) Before I enter into the merits of the case it is necessary to refer to one argument advanced before me by Mr. Ghose on behalf of the tenant opposite party. Mr. Ghose contends that in view of the provisions of Section 32(5) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, the review petition filed before the Rent Controller on July 5, 1952, was incompetent inasmuch as an appeal lay against the order passed by the Rent Controller on June 7, 1952, directing the landladies to refund to the tenant a sum of Rs. 120-12-0. It would appear that no objection in this precise form was taken in the courts below. Apart from that there is this thing to be borne in mind that what the landladies were complaining of on July 5, 1952, by their petition was in substance that there is an apparent error on the face of the record in so far as the order, dated July 5, 1952, in case No. 83 by the Rent Controller directing refund was in conflict with the order passed by the same Rent Controller on the same date in case No. 85 by which standard rent had been fixed at Rs. 7-12-0 with effect from June, 1952. That being the position it may well be argued as has been argued before me on bebalf of the landladies-Petitioners that there was a case for applying Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if that be so, the application filed before the Rent Controller on July 5, 1962, was in substance competent. In my opinion there is no valid reason why this line of argument in favour of the competency of the application, dated July 5, 1952, for modifying the order passed on June 7, 1952, in case No. 83 should not be given effect to.